Re: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-13: (with COMMENT)

[Lucien Avramov <[e-mail]>]

> 
> Definitely agreed, will place a statement in both documents today to explain what datacenter switches are at time of writing. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Lucien
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 13:28, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-13: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> (I'm making the same comment on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and
>> draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology)
>> 
>> I'm looking at the ballot positions on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and
>> draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology that assert these documents aren't specific
>> to "data centers". That wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not seeing a definition
>> of "data center" in either document - did I miss it?
>> 
>> I suspect that the authors have specific technical characteristics in mind,
>> that happen to map onto what data centers look like today, but may not in the
>> future ("RFCs last forever"). Is it possible to tease those characteristics out?
>> 
>> (Full disclosure: my first working group in the IETF could have been called
>> "TCP over cellular links", but it turned out that when we said "cellular
>> links", we meant "low-speed links with high loss rates and asymmetric
>> bandwidth". "Cellular links" in the late 1990s didn't have the same
>> characteristics that "cellular links" have in 2017, but there are other link
>> types with those characteristics, so the documents ended up being useful in
>> places like CORE. I'm not suggesting anything like a restructure of the
>> document(s), only that they be clear about how future readers would know
>> whether they should be reading them in 2027)
>> 
>>